Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

1) Of course, the problem was not just that "it looks weird but on further analysis, it all comes out ok." This was a case where total morons claimed to have actually done the "forensic science" and found "problems." And then clueless conspiracy nutters gobbled it up. All completely baseless.
2) I disagree with the premise. I don't see anything all that weird about the original pictures, except maybe his pose. But then, he's holding a gun, so how can you say what it should be?
3) They should have done the analysis on the pictures in the movie JFK. That was their problem, they didn't distort them massively before doing the analysis.

And then the entire premise of a fake was blown out of the water when the second photograph of the series was recovered.

Frankly, a frame-up would have been easier without the picture had that been a real thing. Simple is always smarter.

 

[HSienzant]

And also some other sparse statements from the doctors indicate that after they had already reflected the scalp to remove the brain, they had to make another special incision to remove the area of the scalp around the entry wound. If the wound was in the cowlick area, the first big incision in the scalp would be enough to expose the entry wound.

The skull bone has two sides, an inside and an outside. The entry wound on the skull likewise has two aspects to it on the skull -- the interior aspect (the part of the wound next to the brain) and the exterior aspect (the part of the skull next to the scalp). Cutting down the scalp on both sides of the head to the level of the ears exposed the interior aspect of the entry wound when the scalp was peeled back, but because the skull bone was still adhering to the scalp, they couldn't see the exterior aspect until they cut the scalp away from the bone itself.

This too was explained to you in the past.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11887600&postcount=556
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11888102&postcount=560

This pretense of yours that there is anything needing explaining is just that - pretense.

That's not what Dr. Finck said, Dr. Finck specifically denied that, and repeatedly explained what happened in plain English, and any deviation from that is a figment of your imagination. Finck always said he could see the entry hole as an unimpeded perforation in the intact, empty skull.

Except he didn't. He and Humes and Boswell were quite clear about what transpired.

There were cuts made down to the ears on either side of the head -- and this was through the scalp only as the skull was badly fragmented -- and the entry wound visible on the rear of the head corresponded to the wound on the inside of the skull. That means the skull bone was still adhering to the scalp, despite your arguments to the contrary. And because of the nature of the wound in the skull, Finck could readily determine it was an entry wound. Furthermore, when the bone and scalp were sliced apart, the wound of entry on the rear of the skull could be seen.

Dr. Humes testimony to the Warren Commission:
"To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skull by this injury.
We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it."

Dr. Finck's 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:
"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance.
...
The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary. "

Dr. Boswell's testimony to the ARRB:
"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that."

The photos and X-Rays of the head taken at the autopsy show exactly why that normal procedure to remove the skull cap wasn't necessary. It's not often that a deceased person is missing the upper half of their head along with extensive fragmenting of the remainder of the skull. Slicing the scalp was sufficient, according to Finck and Humes, to allow the brain to be removed. The bone adhered to the scalp so that they could find the wound of entrance on the scalp, and the corresponding wound of entrance on the skull as well.

There was one entry wound seen at autopsy, and the exit wound from the same bullet.

There is no evidence of a second shot to the head. That's all in your head, not Kennedy's.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

That's not what Dr. Finck said, Dr. Finck specifically denied that, and repeatedly explained what happened in plain English, and any deviation from that is a figment of your imagination. Finck always said he could see the entry hole as an unimpeded perforation in the intact, empty skull.

No, he said exactly as I summarized. And he didn't say the skull was intact, he said it was extensively fractured. He even used a word you appear not to understand -- 'comminuted'. Do you understand what that means?

You even previously argued the skull was so extensively fractured pieces were falling off... How does that translate in your world to 'intact'?

Dr. Finck saw the entry in the intact rest of the skull, what was left after the skull cavity had been enlarged.

Repeating your argument, while contradicting yourself, does not put your argument in the realm of convincing. How could the skull be intact when the X-Ray you provided shows it was badly fragmented, and the autopsists themselves spoke of how much damage the skull suffered?

And, importantly, the area of the skull around the large defect was so fractured that pieces would naturally break off. Very little sawing of the skull was necessary. So since the X-rays show the cowlick fracture right beside the large defect, the cowlick area of the skull would have been among the pieces to naturally break off. Since Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the skull cavity was enlarged and the brain was removed yet could still examine the entry wound in the intact rest of the skull, this indicates that the entry wound was not on the upper cowlick area as theorized by the HSCA.

How does something that's extensively fractured and falling apart as it's handled also qualify as 'intact'? You contradict yourself with each new post and never even try to reconcile these contradictory claims.

See the links I generously provided above as well.

No free fringe reset for you.

Um... Earth to Hank?

Hank is here. Still awaiting a meaningful response from the person now referring to himself as "Earth" (AKA "MicahJava").

Try addressing the points I raised instead of just frantically hand-waving them away. How is the skull both "extensively fragmented" and "intact" at the same time?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Because Dr. Finck always said he arrived to the autopsy to see the entry hole unimpeded within the empty skull, not as a fragment separated from the skull. This implies the lower original wound placement is correct, and the cowlick entry theory is wrong.

So this is solely your *inference* that the wound was lower in the skull than the HSCA forensic autopsy panel put it. Thank you for that admission.

Now that you've admitted that, rather than jumping from point A to point Z, perhaps you would like to marshall the facts and point out how you reached point Z, especially since the autopsy doctors themselves were all over the map in their recollections decades after the fact.

Try restricting yourself to statements made in the 1960s, especially those from 1963 (the original autopsy report), 1964 (Humes Warren Commission testimony), and 1965 (Finck's report).

Build a case from the evidence, not from your inferences built upon speculations built upon out of context quotes built upon recollections from more than three decades after the fact.

That hasn't been convincing thus far. Repeating the arguments won't make them more convincing. So try making a case from the evidence.

You can start by looking up what comminuted means, then quote the supposed statement of Finck that the skull was intact when he first saw it, and then reconcile the difference.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Because Dr. Finck always said he arrived to the autopsy to see the entry hole unimpeded within the empty skull, not as a fragment separated from the skull. This implies the lower original wound placement is correct, and the cowlick entry theory is wrong.

You then go on (in other posts) to conclude this implies two shots to the head.

That's an implication you alone are drawing.

None of the three original autopsists thought it implied that. Right?

None of the 20 or so forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials thought it implied that. Right?

And you haven't convinced anyone here - despite months of posting on this subject - that your conclusion of two shots to the head is a reasonable one derived from a dispassionate study of the evidence.

So you've reached a conclusion that is at odds with the three experts who had the body in front of them, at odds with the 20(?) experts who reviewed the autopsy, and at odds with numerous disinterested parties here in this forum who are willing to be convinced by something stronger than your layman's opinion about what certain procedures must mean.

Given all that, your opinion is the outlet here. At what point do you reassess the conclusion you're reaching, or is that conclusion of two shots to the head set in stone at this point?

If it is, perhaps it's best to agree to disagree and move on. Because there's not much sadder that witnessing someone beating a deceased equine and expecting that horse to rise.

You could count on one hand the number of people with the specific expertise to interpret the official JFK X-rays. If you don't assume that all forensic pathologists know enough to interpret the X-rays, what are you left with?

Try addressing the points I did make for a change. Even conceding for the sake of argument that every person with a medical degree knows nothing about how to read x-rays (a position that's laughable), why should we presume you - an uneducated layman - know more about determining how many bullets struck JFK in the head than the twenty forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials as well as the three original autopsists who examined the body?

That's an absurdity you will never be able to surmount.

Beat that dead horse. Maybe it will surprise everyone here and get up and walk yet.

Twenty forensic pathologists? Last I checked, there were only about twelve that signed off on the cowlick entry theory or something similar to it (some of them reported the entry as a one or two+ centimeters difference from eachother). And all that is required to be a forensic pathologist is to identify a cause of death at autopsy. There is nothing "laughable" at calling for only the opinions of specialists in gunshot wound X-rays. You know the JFK X-rays were made with old portable equipment, riddled with cobwebs and artifacts, they were made for the sole purpose of identifying fragments or possible bullets within the body. And the enhanced versions we have today were made with 70's technology.

Asked to reconcile your layman's view against that of the experts, you quibble over exactly how many experts there were, and how far apart they supposedly put the entry wound (a centimeter or two, according to you, but you cite nothing to establish that. Is this another inference of yours?)

Then you argue that forensic pathologists are not qualified to read X-Rays, which would no doubt surprise every member of the forensic panel that served for the HSCA in 1978. Heck, even 'lowly' ondontologists can read X-Rays. I know, because I've seen my daughter do it.

And then you question the X-Rays themselves, mostly because (I guess) they show the extensive fracturing of the skull, which you like to claim was somehow 'intact'. Do you suppose new X-Rays will show less fracturing? Why bother with two-dimensional X-Rays at all? If the body is dug up to re-examine, you can make a three-dimensional full body CAT scan of the remains. Well, you can't, but that could be done, and no doubt you'd find fault with all the conclusions the experts reached utilizing that information as well. No doubt, if we wait another 100 years, someone could argue that the full body CAT scan was done with antiquated 21st Century technology, and the conclusions reached should be cast aside in favor of digging up the body YET AGAIN (in 2117 or thereabouts).

Your arguments are laughable.

All this was covered in the past.

You don't get one free fringe reset.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I count 16 Forensic Pathologists and two others (denoted) with areas of expertise:

1. Dr. Pierre Finck, at the original autopsy
2. William Carnes, Clark Panel member, 1968
3. Russel Fisher, Clark Panel member, 1968
4. Russel Morgan, Clark Panel member, 1968
5. Alan Moritz, Clark Panel member, 1968
6. Robert McMeekin, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
7. Richard Lindenberg, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
8. Werner Spitz, Rockefeller Commission, 1975, HSCA Panel, 1978
9. John Coe, HSCA Panel, 1978
10. Joseph Davis, HSCA Panel, 1978
11. George Loquvam, HSCA Panel, 1978
12. Charles Petty, HSCA Panel, 1978
13. Earl Rose, HSCA Panel, 1978
14. Cyril Wecht, HSCA Panel, 1978
15. James Weston, HSCA Panel, 1978
16. Michael Baden, HSCA Panel, 1978
17. Fred Hodges, Radiologist, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
18. Alfred Olivier, Wound Ballistics, Warren Commission, Rockefeller Commission, 1975

I may have missed some.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark Panel.html
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=930#relPageId=273&tab=page
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0008a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0042a.htm

 

[HSienzant]

If the EOP wound doesn't imply more than one gunshot to the head, then why is every nutter so squeamish to accept the evidence for it?

What we're not accepting is your version of events, which leads you to conclude there were two shots to the head. None of the qualified experts to examine the body or the extant autopsy materials reached that conclusion. You want us to ignore the expert's unanimous opinion of one shot to the rear of the head and accept some anonymous internet layman's opinion of two shots to the head based on fuzzy quotes and fuzzier logic.

No can do.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Consider that, if a first head shot happened at around the time Kennedy went behind the sign on the Zapruder film, you're talking about a 5 second span of time for any very nearby witnesses to see it. Also consider the lighting conditions in Dealey Plaza, like how several people in the motorcade are pictured with dark shadows covering their east sides. And you're talking about "blood" which could have only been seen in the small space between his hairline and his shirt collar.

Consider that you're arguing that JFK got shot in the head and did nothing more than raise his arms to his neck.

Consider that you don't explain what happened to the bullet.

Consider that the image on the Zapruder film (which depends on the exposure setting) has nothing to do with what people saw. It was a bright sunny day, just after noon, which would have been near-optimal viewing conditions for eyewitnesses. The "lighting conditions in Dealey Plaza" don't help your argument whatsoever.

Consider that you don't know the map directions in Dealey Plaza. "Northeast" is almost directly behind the limo in the Zapruder film. The sun was high in the southern sky, and the limo passengers were facing it, putting the northern part of their bodies in shadow. The 'eastern' side of the passengers & spectators would be the side mostly away from Zapruder's camera.

Look at a map: https://cfrankdavis.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/jfk-dealeyplaza.gif
(north is denoted on the Main Street portion of the map. You can see the limo was proceeding in a south-westerly direction during the shooting).

Consider that the sign in question didn't block all the spectators view of JFK during the early part of the shooting - or even most of them. Or even a significant minority of the spectators. Any of those spectators on the east side of Elm (opposite Zapruder) didn't have the sign blocking their vision, nor did most of the spectators on the west side of Elm. Only those near Zapruder would have their vision blocked by the sign at approximately the same time as Zapruder.

Consider that you are citing the lack of evidence for a wound in JFK's hairline as evidence for the wound in JFK's hairline, telling us how difficult that wound would be to see. I remind you the more likely explanation remains that no one saw that wound because there was no such wound.

Consider that your listing above is pretty much a meaningless jumble of non-evidence, suppositions, and outright errors of fact. Consider that is why we don't find your arguments convincing.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Jackie would have noticed? She didn't even realize what was happening until the z313 shot happened. You are literally making stuff up. How many witnesses claimed to see the actual bullet hole in Kennedy's jacket, or his throat, or Connally's? I only know of a couple of SS Agents who claimed they literally saw him hit in the back.

She reached for JFK well before that. Another confident 'fact' stated by you that is provably wrong. Here is Jackie touching JFK's elbow about midway through the shooting sequence (Z256)

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z256.jpg

EDIT: I see Axxman300 addressed this already.

And you are still citing lack of evidence for the wound as evidence for the wound. We went through this extensively in the past with several others, including but not limited to Robert Harris, and I reminded you just recently of that fact here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11899522&postcount=745

How many people saw the flechette (poison dart) fired from that umbrella that struck JFK in the throat? No one, right? How many people saw the grassy knoll shooter? How many people saw the shooter in the storm drain, or on the rooftop of the County Courts building, or in the window of the Dal-Tex building, or saw the driver turn and shoot JFK in the head?

And how many saw pink unicorns with weapons in Dealey Plaza?

Saying 'no one' isn't evidence for any of the above, and it's not evidence for your additional shot to the head, either.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Delete

 

[HSienzant]

Delete

Corrected.

Thanks.

 

[Axxman300]

Lost in all of MJ's CT noise is the "Why?" of it all.

The autopsy happened soon after the body returned to D.C., there was no "Official Story" of any kind and the Warren Commission was nothing but a possibility. The Secret Service and FBI had just begun their investigations, and while they had Oswald as the shooter, everything else was an open question until leads could be run down.

So if, for laughs, we say there was a second bullet wound to the head, why cover that up? How is the idea of Oswald, a communist, being the lone shooter somehow more beneficial than Oswald - and another communist - doing the shooting? How is two shooters any more dramatic in 1963? Hoover was running the FBI, he would have had a field day having agents kick doors in from NYC to Los Angeles rounding up communists and or Mafia goons if that was they way they wanted to play it.

Why frame Oswald when two shooters with Cuban connections would have likely given LBJ post 911-like authority to take Castro out. Seriously, look at a map and compare Vietnam with Cuba, and tell me which one - in 1963/64 made more sense to initiate military action upon. Sure, we had a deal with the Russians that we wouldn't invade Cuba after the Missile Crisis, but LBJ could have argued that agreement died with JFK, and it's doubtful the Russians would have contested action after the assassination lest they fall under our cross-hairs.

For a second GSW to the head to have been suppressed in that final week of November, 1963, it would have required some serious internal government power to have that kind of successful influence. The problem is that we have no record of any one person or group of people within the US government with that kind of power - at least people who were able to keep it secret for 54 years. The CIA began to leak like a sieve in 1969, the FBI joined in after Hoover expired, and yet there is NOTHING to suggest a frame-up or high-level cover-up regarding the assassination in direct regard to Oswald.

The biggest problem with the JFK-CT is that nobody on the fruit-loop side can answer these questions with any authority. We have so many declassified documents now from that time, and we have yet to find anything out of order.

We get the final documents in October, three months from now.

The only smoking gun belonged to Oswald, and he had two that day.

 

[HSienzant]

Delete

Lost in all of MJ's CT noise is the "Why?" of it all.

The autopsy happened soon after the body returned to D.C., there was no "Official Story" of any kind and the Warren Commission was nothing but a possibility. The Secret Service and FBI had just begun their investigations, and while they had Oswald as the shooter, everything else was an open question until leads could be run down.

So if, for laughs, we say there was a second bullet wound to the head, why cover that up? How is the idea of Oswald, a communist, being the lone shooter somehow more beneficial than Oswald - and another communist - doing the shooting? How is two shooters any more dramatic in 1963? Hoover was running the FBI, he would have had a field day having agents kick doors in from NYC to Los Angeles rounding up communists and or Mafia goons if that was they way they wanted to play it.

Why frame Oswald when two shooters with Cuban connections would have likely given LBJ post 911-like authority to take Castro out. Seriously, look at a map and compare Vietnam with Cuba, and tell me which one - in 1963/64 made more sense to initiate military action upon. Sure, we had a deal with the Russians that we wouldn't invade Cuba after the Missile Crisis, but LBJ could have argued that agreement died with JFK, and it's doubtful the Russians would have contested action after the assassination lest they fall under our cross-hairs.

For a second GSW to the head to have been suppressed in that final week of November, 1963, it would have required some serious internal government power to have that kind of successful influence. The problem is that we have no record of any one person or group of people within the US government with that kind of power - at least people who were able to keep it secret for 54 years. The CIA began to leak like a sieve in 1969, the FBI joined in after Hoover expired, and yet there is NOTHING to suggest a frame-up or high-level cover-up regarding the assassination in direct regard to Oswald.

The biggest problem with the JFK-CT is that nobody on the fruit-loop side can answer these questions with any authority. We have so many declassified documents now from that time, and we have yet to find anything out of order.

We get the final documents in October, three months from now.

The only smoking gun belonged to Oswald, and he had two that day.

 

[Major Major]

We get the final documents in October, three months from now.

The only smoking gun belonged to Oswald, and he had two that day.

Do you really believe that the CT's will accept that those are the "final" documents?

They will, however, contain enough material for the basis of a new generation of conspiracy theorists. I see a wave of books pouring onto the stands in 2018, all contradictory, all with the truth.

 

[Axxman300]

Do you really believe that the CT's will accept that those are the "final" documents?

They will, however, contain enough material for the basis of a new generation of conspiracy theorists. I see a wave of books pouring onto the stands in 2018, all contradictory, all with the truth.

To answer the first question: No, it is almost impossible for a JFK-CTist to stop being one. They will point to the inevitable "Missing" or "Destroyed" documents and files that are sure to be listed or mentioned. And they will continue to harp on the Autopsy photos and x-rays still kept from public view for the time being.

Last year there were at least seven new JFK-CT books, and it looks like 2017 has two new ones thus far. It is a cottage industry and as long as enough books continue to sell there will be new ones.

There is hope. History Channel yanked "Finding Oswald" from their line-up without explanation, or saying when or if it will return. A show about Oswald came in second to a reality show about dudes making knives.

I think that by now most Americans, and sadly - Europeans - have a good idea what one man with a rifle can do when motivated, and from today's perspective Oswald's guilt is more obvious.

 

[HSienzant]

Oops, nope, the shot was easy. Why are JFK CT claims and people wrong and unable to get the simple things correct.

I could hit the head with a tomato...

Speaking of easy shots, here's a shot from almost 1.3 miles away using iron sights. With an unmodified 1950 rifle.

Remember that Oswald's rifle was from WWII (manufacturer in 1940) and thus was only 23 years old at the time of the assassination in 1963. This newer accomplishment (link below) is with a weapon 67 years old -- so nearly three times as old as Oswald's rifle (67 / 23 = 2.91) and more than 25 times as distant as Oswald's shot (2240 / 88 = 25.45).

And let's compare cost: Oswald spent $21.45 on his weapon (including shipping) to acquire his weapon. That's the equivalent of $172.68 as of May, 2017 (most current numbers available) at the official US Dept of Labor site here: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

The person who accomplished the current feat spent $99 on his rifle. So the weapon used for the current feat is cheaper and older, and the shooting feat was far more distant.

http://www.range365.com/utah-man-makes-possible-world-record-shot-with-iron-sights

So much for the "Oswald couldn't do it because JFK's head would look like an ant at 88 yards using the iron sights" nonsense argument MicahJava was spouting earlier in this thread.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Couple of points:

You can see Jackie grab his left arm, and put her hand on his upper shoulder near where your phantom, nanothermite-subsonic .22 round struck based on your ridiculous estimate. Yes, it would have to be a nanothermite because it instantly cauterized the wound...and because like your .22 round, nanothermite doesn't exist.

Most witnesses only speak of JFK reacting, and then his head exploding, I doubt the Secret Service and FBI even asked as it is an irrelevant question since they had the President's clothes already.

The Secret Service driver of the following vehicle claimed to have seen all THREE bullets strike the car, a lot of people saw a lot of things that day, and that's why the evidence is collected and sifted to get to the bottom line.

You have to address where the .22 round went, and why it wasn't discovered in the autopsy. Not any of your pet witnesses ever spoke of a smaller second missile being removed, and disposed of in secret. You're in Badge-Man territory.

What? Jackie's recollections are hardly good for anything. Her witness statements can't be qualified as forensic evidence, they're too garbled and vague.

 

[MicahJava]

Except he didn't. He and Humes and Boswell were quite clear about what transpired.

There were cuts made down to the ears on either side of the head -- and this was through the scalp only as the skull was badly fragmented -- and the entry wound visible on the rear of the head corresponded to the wound on the inside of the skull. That means the skull bone was still adhering to the scalp, despite your arguments to the contrary. And because of the nature of the wound in the skull, Finck could readily determine it was an entry wound. Furthermore, when the bone and scalp were sliced apart, the wound of entry on the rear of the skull could be seen.

Dr. Humes testimony to the Warren Commission:
"To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skull by this injury.
We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it."

Dr. Finck's 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:
"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance.
...
The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary. "

Dr. Boswell's testimony to the ARRB:
"There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that."

The photos and X-Rays of the head taken at the autopsy show exactly why that normal procedure to remove the skull cap wasn't necessary. It's not often that a deceased person is missing the upper half of their head along with extensive fragmenting of the remainder of the skull. Slicing the scalp was sufficient, according to Finck and Humes, to allow the brain to be removed. The bone adhered to the scalp so that they could find the wound of entrance on the scalp, and the corresponding wound of entrance on the skull as well.

There was one entry wound seen at autopsy, and the exit wound from the same bullet.

There is no evidence of a second shot to the head. That's all in your head, not Kennedy's.

Hank

HS, recently I've been spending a little more time re-reading all of the important testimonies and meticulously saving what I find interesting on text files sorted by subject. Not totally done yet, but I've already posted what you're responding to here already. There are at least two statements from the autopsy that imply that a special, separate scalp incision was made to expose the small wound low in the head, in addition to the large scalp incision already made to facilitate removal of the brain.

From Humes and Boswell's 9/16/1977 interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite- oh, it must be, I can't read it- but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire- I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.


From Finck's 3/11/1978 HSCA testimony:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.

Another general rule of thumb is that if a JFK autopsy witness does not specifically say that something happened, don't just continue trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous.

 

[MicahJava]

I count 16 Forensic Pathologists and two others (denoted) with areas of expertise:

1. Dr. Pierre Finck, at the original autopsy
2. William Carnes, Clark Panel member, 1968
3. Russel Fisher, Clark Panel member, 1968
4. Russel Morgan, Clark Panel member, 1968
5. Alan Moritz, Clark Panel member, 1968
6. Robert McMeekin, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
7. Richard Lindenberg, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
8. Werner Spitz, Rockefeller Commission, 1975, HSCA Panel, 1978
9. John Coe, HSCA Panel, 1978
10. Joseph Davis, HSCA Panel, 1978
11. George Loquvam, HSCA Panel, 1978
12. Charles Petty, HSCA Panel, 1978
13. Earl Rose, HSCA Panel, 1978
14. Cyril Wecht, HSCA Panel, 1978
15. James Weston, HSCA Panel, 1978
16. Michael Baden, HSCA Panel, 1978
17. Fred Hodges, Radiologist, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
18. Alfred Olivier, Wound Ballistics, Warren Commission, Rockefeller Commission, 1975

I may have missed some.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark Panel.html
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=930#relPageId=273&tab=page
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0008a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0042a.htm

What? Not all of those are forensic pathologists, and those aren't all of the forensic pathologists who studied the X-rays. And they don't all agree with the cowlick entry theory. And at least some of them aren't qualified to analyze the JFK X-rays and all of their complications.

 

[MicahJava]

Speaking of easy shots, here's a shot from almost 1.3 miles away using iron sights. With an unmodified 1950 rifle.

Remember that Oswald's rifle was from WWII (manufacturer in 1940) and thus was only 23 years old at the time of the assassination in 1963. This newer accomplishment (link below) is with a weapon 67 years old -- so nearly three times as old as Oswald's rifle (67 / 23 = 2.91) and more than 25 times as distant as Oswald's shot (2240 / 88 = 25.45).

And let's compare cost: Oswald spent $21.45 on his weapon (including shipping) to acquire his weapon. That's the equivalent of $172.68 as of May, 2017 (most current numbers available) at the official US Dept of Labor site here: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

The person who accomplished the current feat spent $99 on his rifle. So the weapon used for the current feat is cheaper and older, and the shooting feat was far more distant.

http://www.range365.com/utah-man-makes-possible-world-record-shot-with-iron-sights

So much for the "Oswald couldn't do it because JFK's head would look like an ant at 88 yards using the iron sights" nonsense argument MicahJava was spouting earlier in this thread.

Hank

Um, okay? Still not a moving target.